Seed Pearl Necklace and Bracelets

[Gene C]

(06-03-2019 06:05 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  I know I cannot compete with Gene, but how about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRjQDrDnY8

Fido and I like that one.

[L Verge]

(06-03-2019 09:06 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I don't even see a scar on the purported Mary's forehead. What I do notice is that she is wearing multiple, rather heavy rings. The actual Mary, by contrast, seems to have kept her rings to a minimum.

I noticed the rings also, Susan, as well as the rather large hands with long, bony fingers and knuckles that seem to show the beginnings of arthritis after years of hard work. Quite different from those in Mary Lincoln's pose.

[RJNorton]

(06-03-2019 04:24 PM)James Wrote:  Roger - Is Dr. Sotos still alive?

Yes, he is alive. I do not know if he studied all 130 known photos of Abraham Lincoln, but I would guess he did. Many years ago I exchanged a few emails with him, and we both agreed Lincoln did not have Marfan Syndrome. He tried to convince me that Lincoln had MEN2B, but I disagreed, and the email exchange came to an end. Despite the fact that I personally disagree with his theory, I would recommend Dr. Sotos' book to you, James.

[davg2000]

Dave - Mr. Weinberg was contacted right after the discovery of the daguerreotype. He (and Timothy Bakken) stated the couple were of equal height, that the gentleman was too neatly and nattily dressed to be Abraham Lincoln, even to the point of holding a "hanky" in his left hand. Objectivity is only one part of the equation. Rudimentary powers of observation and reasoning also have to be applied in authenticating a photograph.
Obviously, you're right about the sarcasm, but let's be honest; it cuts both ways. It's a contentious debate. Both sides are convinced they're right. That's why I'm attempting to allow the visual evidence to do the speaking. But at some point, people have to come to their senses. You folks are throwing everything in your arsenal at what you are convinced is a phony pane of glass. You're convinced that the next rock, the next bottle, the brick ...is going to break it. It's BULLETPROOF! You can't break it. It's the real deal. You're just going to have to deal with reality at some point. And that's not sarcasm, that's just the honest-to-god's truth.
[/quote]

James, it's interesting, and admirable, that you are frank about Dan Weinberg's observations (which seem accurate to me). Yet shortly after you say that "rudimentary powers of observation and reasoning also have to be applied in authenticating a photograph." I'm confused here. Are you saying that Mr. Weinberg lacks those powers and reasoning ability? What if he had agreed with you? But, then, if that had been true, we'd not be having this conversation, would we?

The other thing that troubles me about the dag, and which you do not address, is the lack of any connection to the Lincolns. The web site does give both a history of the photograph and those who owned it, but says nary a word about the Lincolns ever owning it. A genuine Lincoln item rarely appears. But when it does, its provenance is made available for inspection. So, in the absence of such, you are suggesting what? That the dag somehow left the Lincolns and eventually became the property of the ancestors of a woman named Ruth Montgomery Day. Eventually it became her property. Fine--that's what often happens to old pictures. But how did this picture get to her ancestors?

Some time ago, Donna told me that I "couldn't knock the dag off its perch." That made me smile at the time. You and she seem to think that if people here try to explain why they don't think you have what you say, they are throwing stones, bottles, and bricks. Not true.

Why did you come here, if not to seek informed opinion?

[L Verge]

"Rudimentary powers of observation and reasoning also have to be applied in authenticating a photograph."

James, in my opinion, what you stated above should end the debate -- in fact, should have ended it from the very beginning. Plain old observation that neither of the two persons in that dag looks like the Lincolns should certainly do it for 99% of the people who have ever seen a photo of either Abraham or Mary.

[James]

Informed opinion, Dave? Oh boy, here we go again. Would it trouble you greatly if I were to borrow Donna's ... "Johnny Mac" reference and sledgehammer as a means of reply to that statement? Or would that be construed as sarcasm? And what is it exactly about sarcasm that is so offensive to you folks?
How on God's green earth would you expect me to respond to Laurie's statement that her source, who is a well known author who specializes in Mary Lincoln, had no knowledge of the large scar on Mary's forehead because they couldn't find a reference to it after having read "literally" (her words - not mine) every bit of biographical material available on Mary?
Susan asks ... "If the identifying scar that Mary bore is not mentioned in any of her biographies, what is your source for the scar"?
Since we're talking about a PHOTOGRAPH, would logic and basic common sense not dictate that one simply peruse an illustrated biography of Mary Lincoln?
It really feels like the cart is pulling the horse here. It's reminiscent of the TV commercial with the little girl asking ... "so what exactly does the dishwasher do"?
So what exactly does the Lincoln community do?

[davg2000]

OK, James, here is what is wrong with sarcasm:

Adults who want to be taken seriously avoid it because it accomplishes little that is constructive. It is a juvenile way to speak which invites an escalating sarcastic response from other juveniles. It finally descends to insult and abuse. In the end the interchange becomes all about emotion, and the original point of discussion is lost. Finally, as I've said to you, it accomplishes nothing for the user except for him to vent and enjoy a cheap laugh at the listener's expense. It most certainly does not advance the user's cause.

James, I'm going to assume that you have no provenance for the picture, or else you would have provided it. So in the absence of that, and your inability to cite authorities who support your position, you and Donna are expecting others to agree with you on the mere basis of what is on the web site. It's not enough. It's unfortunate that you and she can't see the picture dispassionately.

[L Verge]

(06-04-2019 11:41 AM)James Wrote:  Informed opinion, Dave? Oh boy, here we go again. Would it trouble you greatly if I were to borrow Donna's ... "Johnny Mac" reference and sledgehammer as a means of reply to that statement? Or would that be construed as sarcasm? And what is it exactly about sarcasm that is so offensive to you folks?
How on God's green earth would you expect me to respond to Laurie's statement that her source, who is a well known author who specializes in Mary Lincoln, had no knowledge of the large scar on Mary's forehead because they couldn't find a reference to it after having read "literally" (her words - not mine) every bit of biographical material available on Mary?
Susan asks ... "If the identifying scar that Mary bore is not mentioned in any of her biographies, what is your source for the scar"?
Since we're talking about a PHOTOGRAPH, would logic and basic common sense not dictate that one simply peruse an illustrated biography of Mary Lincoln?
It really feels like the cart is pulling the horse here. It's reminiscent of the TV commercial with the little girl asking ... "so what exactly does the dishwasher do"?
So what exactly does the Lincoln community do?

How on God's green earth would you expect me to respond to Laurie's statement that her source, who is a well known author who specializes in Mary Lincoln, had no knowledge of the large scar on Mary's forehead because they couldn't find a reference to it after having read "literally" (her words - not mine) every bit of biographical material available on Mary?
Susan asks ... "If the identifying scar that Mary bore is not mentioned in any of her biographies, what is your source for the scar"?
Since we're talking about a PHOTOGRAPH, would logic and basic common sense not dictate that one simply peruse an illustrated biography of Mary Lincoln?

First, When I said "literally," I meant literally because the well-known and respected author who answered my email the other day has probably read and written more on Mary Todd Lincoln than anyone else in the field - past or present. This expert also emailed me today to say that he/she went to page 287 in the Kunhardts' book to double-check about the scar. He/she says it is more of a pock mark than an injury scar.

And this leads directly to your next comment. Those with whom you have dealt, both here and in the Lincoln world, have done a lot more than "simply peruse an illustrated biography of Mary Lincoln." How do you think they have gained the stature that they have in the field?

[James]

Dave - I disagree with your synopsis. Sarcasm or irony has been used by nearly all respondents on this particular thread, including you. It's not juvenile. It's a tool used by reasonably intelligent people to strike a nerve or even in a humorous manner. I've borne the brunt of it here and I don't whine about it, I just respond in kind.
Condescension, on the other hand, is a tool used by elitists to demean and belittle.

Provenance has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity when a photograph is the subject of scrutiny. Visual evidence is the sole determining factor. What do you think the odds are that members of this forum would reconsider their position should future research tie the Abe and Mary dag directly to either Abe or Mary? Zero.

Laurie - I'm not going to quibble about a pockmark versus a scar. I never ever mentioned the word injury. It's simply another in a long laundry list of identifying characteristics. That was my point.
I'm well aware that there are a lot of folks who have poured countless hours, days, years, even decades into researching both Abe and Mary. Which is why it was so mind-boggling that the scar (pockmark) on her forehead has never been documented in a biography.

[Steve]

I know I'm repeating myself from an earlier comment, but I would really like to hear people's opinions on this question. Judging just by looking at the image, and not inferring anything by any outside assumptions (like who the people in the image may be and when you think the photo was taken), how old do you think the two people in the image are? What age range, in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's? Note that the man has a slight graying of his beard but I don't think I can see any other graying hair on the man and woman.

[RJNorton]

Steve, I think I would guess 40s for both of these folks.

[davg2000]

(06-04-2019 11:04 PM)James Wrote:  Dave - I disagree with your synopsis. Sarcasm or irony has been used by nearly all respondents on this particular thread, including you. It's not juvenile. It's a tool used by reasonably intelligent people to strike a nerve or even in a humorous manner. I've borne the brunt of it here and I don't whine about it, I just respond in kind.
Condescension, on the other hand, is a tool used by elitists to demean and belittle.

Provenance has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity when a photograph is the subject of scrutiny. Visual evidence is the sole determining factor. What do you think the odds are that members of this forum would reconsider their position should future research tie the Abe and Mary dag directly to either Abe or Mary? Zero.

James, I was an English teacher for a long time. Here is what verbal irony is--saying something in words opposite to one's intent. I can't think of a writer I've taught who didn't use it. The use of verbal irony requires great ability. Jonathan Swift, to name one, was a genius at it. True, there is a relationship between verbal irony and sarcasm, but sarcasm is usually used in conversation and is heavy and mocking in tone. Sarcasm is used to ridicule. Donna used it often. You, a bit less. Contrary to verbal irony, sarcasm doesn't require much skill--children are able to use it early. For that reason adults don't (or shouldn't) give it much weight. But the larger issue is the effect of sarcasm. If your purpose is to promote the genuineness of the dag or to defend the dag against the an attack on its genuineness, why would you ever want to alienate your reader? How does that help you achieve your purpose? And if you think the foregoing is condescending, it truly isn't. But I did know my field.

Your remark about the significance of provenance is wishful thinking. Can you imagine how air-tight your case would be if you had been able to show the provenance of the photograph back to the Lincolns? But you have none, so you dismiss its value.

---

(06-05-2019 02:01 AM)Steve Wrote:  I know I'm repeating myself from an earlier comment, but I would really like to hear people's opinions on this question. Judging just by looking at the image, and not inferring anything by any outside assumptions (like who the people in the image may be and when you think the photo was taken), how old do you think the two people in the image are? What age range, in their 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's? Note that the man has a slight graying of his beard but I don't think I can see any other graying hair on the man and woman.

Steve, I'd guess late forties or early fifties.

[Susan Higginbotham]

I would say the people in the photo are in late 40s or early 50s.

[RJNorton]

(06-04-2019 11:04 PM)James Wrote:  Provenance has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity when a photograph is the subject of scrutiny.

I believe this is the first time in my life that I have read someone say this. I have always read that when it comes to historical items, including pieces of art and photographs, verified provenance goes a long way to proving the authenticity of a piece and greatly increasing its value.

[L Verge]

(06-04-2019 11:04 PM)James Wrote:  Dave - I disagree with your synopsis. Sarcasm or irony has been used by nearly all respondents on this particular thread, including you. It's not juvenile. It's a tool used by reasonably intelligent people to strike a nerve or even in a humorous manner. I've borne the brunt of it here and I don't whine about it, I just respond in kind.
Condescension, on the other hand, is a tool used by elitists to demean and belittle.

Provenance has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity when a photograph is the subject of scrutiny. Authenticity does not mean accurate.
Reproductions can be authentic to a period, but not originals. Visual evidence is the sole determining factor. What do you think the odds are that members of this forum would reconsider their position should future research tie the Abe and Mary dag directly to either Abe or Mary? Zero. I for one, would change my opinion if the evidence was rock solid -- but I doubt you will ever be able to prove that...

Laurie - I'm not going to quibble about a pockmark versus a scar. I never ever mentioned the word injury. It's simply another in a long laundry list of identifying characteristics. That was my point.
I'm well aware that there are a lot of folks who have poured countless hours, days, years, even decades into researching both Abe and Mary. Which is why it was so mind-boggling that the scar (pockmark) on her forehead has never been documented in a biography. I am still trying to see that photo. We used to sell the Kunhardts' book at the museum, but that was years ago. I suspect that the scar is either non-existent or not important to Mary's life. And, most men and women of the 19th century (and before and after) had scars from routine childhood illnesses and accidents. Want me to start counting mine? There were no vaccines when I was growing up, so I went through chicken pox, measles, mumps, and even had polio. I do have two smallpox scars, however, from vaccinations.

---

(06-05-2019 08:20 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  I would say the people in the photo are in late 40s or early 50s.

I am going to guess mid-50s, judging by the cheek jowls on the lady and especially her hands. And speaking of hands, please take a good look at the gentleman's hand that is holding the cane and also the watch chain. That hand and the cane and the chain sure look photoshopped to me...